From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:37172 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729200AbgF2Sqn (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:46:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:44:39 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature Message-ID: <20200629154439.14cc5ae7.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <7fe6e9ab-fd5a-3f92-1f3a-f9e6805d3730@linux.ibm.com> References: <1592390637-17441-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1592390637-17441-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com> <7fe6e9ab-fd5a-3f92-1f3a-f9e6805d3730@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pierre Morel Cc: Halil Pasic , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:14:04 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > On 2020-06-19 11:20, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:29:56 +0200 > > Halil Pasic wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200 > >> Pierre Morel wrote: > >>> @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev) > >>> if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) > >>> return 0; > >>> > >>> + if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) && > >>> + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { > >>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, > >>> + "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n"); [Side note: wasn't there a patch renaming this bit on the list? I think this name is only kept for userspace compat.] > >> > >> I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a > >> good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that > > > > Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in > > headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define > > and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn. > > > >> much. An alternative would be: > >> "virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory, > >> aborting the device" > > > > "virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ? > > > > But no issue with keeping the current message. > > > > If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to > accept or not the device. > The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch > specific. Hm, I'd think the reason is always the same (the device cannot access the memory directly), just the way to figure out whether that is the case or not is arch-specific, as with so many other things. No real need to go into detail here, I think.